what made Emma leave Lizzie?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:48 pm

Might the appearance Harry (or the timing anyway) have coincided with the fact that 1913 was the 20th anniversary year of the trial? That's the only reason I can think of offhand anyway.

The question Why now? is good too. I hate to sound completely cynical, but does anyone know if that interview really happened?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:10 pm

Yes, Doug, I thought about the 20 year anniversary of the trial myself but the article is dated April and the trial ended in June. Unless he was just gathering the information for his article.

I don't know of anything that occurred in 1913 to make Emma come to Lizzie's defense. Allegedly, at that time, that hadn't spoken to each other in 8 years.

I thought it could have been an attempt by Emma to reconcile with Lizzie but she puts the kibosh on that with this line "I do not expect ever to set foot on the place while she lives."

She also mentions the size of money she and Lizzie have. You don't get much more personal than that.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:10 pm

"I do not expect ever to set foot on the place while she lives."

Ayup - that sounds pretty final. And God bless her, she kept her word on that so far as we know!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:22 pm

If Lizzie's trial was payed for out of Andrew's estate before it was divided by Emma and Lizzie, the net result would be that Emma paid for half of Lizzie's trial. Why that wouldn't have been offset in the division of the estate is anyone's guess. Emma's acceptance of a portion of the trial expense may have implications. By the time of the interview, it may have been sour grapes.

Was the rental arrangement in lieu of Lizzie buying out Emma's share of Maplecroft? I agree, the information was oddly personal and probably unnecessary.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:06 am

In the Hatchet issue now as a free Introductory Gift on the website, "Lizzie Borden In Black and White", I wrote an interesting interpretation of the Emma Interview. I found that Gertrude Stevenson had written a glaring expose of Lizzie's life at Maplecroft just the week before, April 1913. It was very revealing.
I figured that is why it was probable that Emma spoke up finally in the following Sunday edition- to fix some facts- and to set some records straight. (Andrew's miserly qualities were even specified- they ate *crackers!* I think Emma might defend him at that late date.)
It seems reasonable to me. Especially if one asks "Why then?"

Anyway, Lizzie still was buying property too and I don't think Emma was interested in doing that anymore either. Maybe she also didn't want to support all those servants either. I think these are just more things to add to the list of why Emma gave up and moved away.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:15 am

BTW: In the Emma Interview it starts with Emma being quoted as answering "Lizzie is queer."
Arthur Phillips, Lizzie's defense investigator said sort of the same thing much later. He didn't have to- but he did.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:12 am

I think Emma saying that Lizzie was "queer" meant that she was odd, today she'd have probably said "weird".or "eccentric" That in itself could possibly been the reason why Emma left, she just couldn't take the way Lizzie chose to live. Look where Emma went and how she (on her own) chose to live her life, compared to how Lizzie chose to live her's. I honestly think that had another been caught and put on trial and found quilty of the murders, it would have ended the same for Emma and Lizzie

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:30 am

Kat @ Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:06 am wrote:In the Hatchet issue now as a free Introductory Gift on the website, "Lizzie Borden In Black and White", I wrote an interesting interpretation of the Emma Interview. I found that Gertrude Stevenson had written a glaring expose of Lizzie's life at Maplecroft just the week before, April 1913. It was very revealing.
I figured that is why it was probable that Emma spoke up finally in the following Sunday edition- to fix some facts- and to set some records straight. (Andrew's miserly qualities were even specified- they ate *crackers!* I think Emma might defend him at that late date.)
It seems reasonable to me. Especially if one asks "Why then?"

Anyway, Lizzie still was buying property too and I don't think Emma was interested in doing that anymore either. Maybe she also didn't want to support all those servants either. I think these are just more things to add to the list of why Emma gave up and moved away.

WHO is Gertrude Stevenson? Of Fall River? Boston?
No, I have not downloaded this 'free copy' (yet).
But it sounds reasonable. Newspapers will sometimes run an article to accomplish some mission that is unknown to the general reader. All advertising is not in the editorial columns!!!

Over a dozen years ago there was a series in the local newspaper on how great it would be to have an incinerator in town to service county wastes!!!
(It didn't happen.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:52 pm

Here is the context of Phillips' remarks about Lizzie in his Borden chapter in his History of Fall River, 1946:

There was no suggestion at the time of the trial that Miss Borden was abnormal.
Although the police discovered a small spot of blood on the back of one of her skirts, evidencing not only her then physical condition, but also the fact that they had carefully examined the clothing she was wearing when the murder was committed and had found it otherwise bloodless, there was no evidence that she was ever hysterical or abnormal in these periods, no was there evidence of any unusual mental condition other than an occasional complaint that although she was a daughter of a very rich parent, he was so sparing of his allowances to her that she could assume no social position.

There was no abnormalities in the Borden family. Their inheritance and training savors of their Rhode Island Quaker ancestry; of peace and lack of strife. If Miss Borden’s mind showed any lack of balance in later years, it should not be weighed as evidence of her former condition, because she ever afterwards lived alone, she had no close friends, she was always ogled in public and very annoyed by public activities and encroachments upon her private life.
Would any woman be normal when subjected to such a life?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:54 pm

Please see page 8 of the Hatchet referred to for some background on the journalist, Ms. Stevenson.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:03 am

Kat @ Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:52 pm wrote:Here is the context of Phillips' remarks about Lizzie in his Borden chapter in his History of Fall River, 1946:

There was no suggestion at the time of the trial that Miss Borden was abnormal.
Although the police discovered a small spot of blood on the back of one of her skirts, evidencing not only her then physical condition, but also the fact that they had carefully examined the clothing she was wearing when the murder was committed and had found it otherwise bloodless, there was no evidence that she was ever hysterical or abnormal in these periods, no was there evidence of any unusual mental condition other than an occasional complaint that although she was a daughter of a very rich parent, he was so sparing of his allowances to her that she could assume no social position.

There was no abnormalities in the Borden family. Their inheritance and training savors of their Rhode Island Quaker ancestry; of peace and lack of strife. If Miss Borden’s mind showed any lack of balance in later years, it should not be weighed as evidence of her former condition, because she ever afterwards lived alone, she had no close friends, she was always ogled in public and very annoyed by public activities and encroachments upon her private life.
Would any woman be normal when subjected to such a life?

Stevenson seems to be arguing the fact that Lizzie could not achieve her desired social position due to Andrew's thrift as the source of an unusual complaint. The same was true after the murders, Lizzie could not assume her desired place in society because of the murders. If she appeared odd, the eccentricity was the result of being ostracized, not the result of being frustrated by her lack of social position. Then why was the original complaint about lack of social position unusual?

hyacinth · Post by **hyacinth** » Fri May 04, 2007 6:41 pm

Just wondering if Emma left because Lizzie might have said
" Well yes Emma dear I did kill father and Abby , you know I had to do it , I did it for the both of us , father was going to leave us almost pennyless , we would have to beg a crust of bread from Abby , surely you can understand why I had to do it. "
Just a thought I hope nobody gets their nighty in a knot.

terrie · Post by **terrie** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:56 pm

Victorian and Edwardian sentimentalities were rather extreme, I think. I have always felt that Emma was (a) tired of Lizzie's partying and extravagances and (b) displeased with the realtionship between Lizzie and Nance, whatever it was. In those days, a woman smoking a cigarette was a shocking thing -- or showing too much leg, or a host of other things we no longer consider so horrific. I think that, had Lizzie *confessed* to Emma, Emma would have done more than consult her reverend and move out... maybe consult a policeman or something.

Who knows? Maybe she saw Lizzie sharpening a hatchet....

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:32 pm

Didn't Emma and Lizzie have issues over the chauffeur, Tetreault? He got fired, then Lizzie rehired him...I always wondered about a sexual relationship between them. But it's not the kind of issue a prim Victorian lady like Emma would tolerate or discuss in public.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:25 am

From the way I understand it, at the time Lizzie was running with the acting crowd. Which was, back then, considered not too much better than prostitues. Emma was kind of upright and didn't want to be seen with that kind of crowd.

I think in later years she just wanted to distance herself from the controversy.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:07 pm

I think you are right Micheal. Back then acotrs were considered low lives. And, I think, on the idea of being lesbian lovers, back in that day, you just didn't own up to something like that. Look how hard it is now for people to admit to being gay or lesbain. And that was back in the late 1800's early 1900's. People would have freaked out.